Carter v. Incorporated Village of Ocean Beach
759 F.3d 159
2d Cir.2014Background
- Five former OBPD officers sued the Village defendants and County defendants for wrongful termination and defamation and other claims.
- District court granted summary judgment for all defendants; appellate court summarily affirmed and later the district court awarded fees to County defendants only.
- District court found County defendants’ defense entirely successful; County did not employ or supervise plaintiffs, and claims against them were frivolous from outset.
- Plaintiffs’ state-law claims were dismissed in state court; district court declined supplemental jurisdiction for those claims.
- County defendants sought attorney’s fees and costs under Rule 54(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); the district court awarded $63,990 after a one-third reduction for duplicative hours.
- Appeal followed challenging who is a prevailing party and whether certain categories of claims are compensable under § 1988.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party status under §1988 | County prevailed on all claims, so no separate fee entitlement. | County prevailed as to all claims, including dismissed ones; res judicata applied. | County prevailed on all claims; fee-shifting applies to all claims. |
| Fees for voluntarily dismissed claims | Plaintiffs should not pay fees for voluntarily dismissed claims. | Fees for frivolous claims should be recoverable; voluntary dismissals do not negate prevailing party status. | County may recover fees for frivolous claims regardless of voluntary dismissals. |
| Fees for state-law claims and non-§1988 claims | State-law claims and non-§1988 claims not recoverable; no supplemental jurisdiction warranted. | Fox permits fee recovery for claims enforcing federal rights even if some counts are not §1983; state-law claims were frivolous. | Fees awarded for state-law claims were proper as part of the overall prevailing-party entitlement. |
| Fee calculation methodology | Discretionary reductions were improper; plaintiff should challenge billing. | District court properly adjusted hours; one-third discount and standard deference under Fox applied. | District court acted within its discretion in billing and adjustment. |
| Nemeroff v. Abelson validity | Nemeroff supports plaintiff’s position that voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not confer prevailing-party status. | Nemeroff is superseded by Buckhannon; voluntary dismissal with prejudice can confer prevailing-party status when merits are adjudicated. | Nemeroff rejected; Buckhannon controls; defendants prevailed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (material alteration of the legal relationship required to prevail; voluntary dismissal can count as such if merits resolved)
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (feeshifting standard; frivolousness presumed against plaintiff unless proven nonfrivolous)
- Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205 (U.S. 2011) (allocation of fees where some claims are frivolous; defendant may recover only for frivolous work)
- Nemeroff v. Abelson, 620 F.2d 339 (2d Cir. 1980) (dictum on voluntary dismissal; later repudiated by Buckhannon)
- Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Celotex Corp., 56 F.3d 343 (2d Cir. 1995) (res judicata implications of adjudication on the merits for fee-shifting)